I did what I promised, repost the priceless info disappeared from a downed website.
And now am I going to do what I also promised, to post relevant snapshots of these years old posts, so at last you can see the additional priceless
drawings, seismograms and photos in them.

I knew I had to be fast, you three did not disappoint us, the first of you could not wait more than 6 minutes to squeeze your usual drivel in.

So, we learned yesterday that beyond a shadow of a doubt; Therm*te was not used in the destruction of the the 3 buildings. So, we are back on the
Richard Gage "Hush-A-Bomb" wagon? Go LISTEN to some REAL controlled demolitions. Then listen to collapses of the 3 skyscrapers on 9/11.

LaBTop, you are already on page 2 and virtually by yourself. You hardly need anyone else's input.

I will just say this; you still keep using in your calculations a time of 17 seconds for the travel of seismic waves from the WTC to Palisades seismic
station ( 34 kms at 2 kms per sec ) and treating it as an absolute. But you know and have agreed that, according to the seismologists, a tolerance of
plus or minus 2 seconds should be applied to that. Travel times might therefore have been anything from 15 to 19 seconds which makes it impossible to
correlate exactly seismic waves received at the Palisades station with any particular event at WTC 7.

So, we learned yesterday that beyond a shadow of a doubt; Therm*te was not used in the destruction of the the 3 buildings. So, we are back on the
Richard Gage "Hush-A-Bomb" wagon? Go LISTEN to some REAL controlled demolitions. Then listen to collapses of the 3 skyscrapers on 9/11.

That's a tad bit six grader question.
I laid before you the irrefutable evidence that WTC 7 was demolished.
Why are you now posing, as if there is no viable technique in your eyes, to use for that demolition, that THUS the evidence I laid before you, is of
no importance.

Did you even get any sort of education, where the teachers told you to first adapt to the evidence, before even try to refute it?
And learn to check your typed text, and to come up with links instead of some vague story about thermite.

Btw, these are the seismograms of the impacts and collapses. It has also the 2002 report by Dr Kim as a pdf file in it, and a readme file : www.ldeo.columbia.edu...

You did not even read my opening post in this Sequel thread, that's as obvious as can be.

Then you could have learned that according to NIST, they added an extra 5 seconds to all photo time stamps in their possession, in 2006.

That shifts the Cianca time stamp on my seismogram another FIVE WHOPPING SECONDS away from the first biggest pack of peaks in the WTC 7 seismogram.

Now, tell me, are your nagging1-2 secs even of any importance anymore for the obvious conclusion?

edit on 2/3/12 by LaBTop because: (no reason
given)

The 5 seconds are irrelevant. There is a fatal flaw in your theory because it is not possible to look at seismic wave records at Palisades seismic
station and say exactly when they started their journey from WTC 7. As you know, the seismologists give 17 seconds but with a tolerance of plus or
minus 2 seconds. so it is not a question of a "nagging 1-2 seconds " (although that is significant) but of a possible 4 seconds. You cannot tie up
the seismic records precisely with any events at WTC 7 because of unknown travel time of seismic waves.

And to you JREFers, of course I am not going to hang this original material at the end of page 11 in the first thread.
That is your usual technique for many years already, wreck a good thread with first aggressive, than totally irrelevant few-liners posts with not a
shimmer of your own real research or any links, to push the meat of the matter into oblivion.

And my OP will for sure make clear for those that still not got it, that they should at last march to Washington, DC and clean the Houses there.
Use my OP post as often as you like to counter all these professional debunkers, in every 9/11 thread you find. PM me if you don't know how to
counter their usual drivel, I can and will assist you.

You know, you should realize another thing that should make you very nervous.
This kind of evidence is spread as a wildfire, but also read by all the other countries security agencies.
And they understand this kind of research. And their countries policies will get affected by the knowledge that the US government played such an evil
game on all of them.
New dangerous secret alliances have already been formed, and they are getting too strong to overcome with military might alone.

If you Americans are not going to change the voting process, and then vote the Houses out of power and replace them with real concerned politicians,
you will eventually get eradicated by the rest of the world.

And I have too many valuable friends in the USA to let that happen, so, do what you have to do, and take at last appropriate action. Or you will loose
in the end. An end that is nearing faster and faster. Look what they have done to your middle and working class people already, and that is just the
beginning.
There are only con-men and -women in your Houses left.

You did not even read my opening post in this Sequel thread, that's as obvious as can be.

Then you could have learned that according to NIST, they added an extra 5 seconds to all photo time stamps in their possession, in 2006.

That shifts the Cianca time stamp on my seismogram another FIVE WHOPPING SECONDS away from the first biggest pack of peaks in the WTC 7 seismogram.

Now, tell me, are your nagging1-2 secs even of any importance anymore for the obvious conclusion?

edit on 2/3/12 by LaBTop because: (no reason
given)

The 5 seconds are irrelevant. There is a fatal flaw in your theory because it is not possible to look at seismic wave records at Palisades seismic
station and say exactly when they started their journey from WTC 7. As you know, the seismologists give 17 seconds but with a tolerance of plus or
minus 2 seconds. so it is not a question of a "nagging 1-2 seconds " (although that is significant) but of a possible 4 seconds. You cannot tie up
the seismic records precisely with any events at WTC 7 because of unknown travel time of seismic waves.

Well, you just showed either an enormous lack of understanding of very basic scientific research, or you are deliberately lying through your teeth to
get as near to those extra 5 seconds as you try the readers to believe. Your spouting at least only gibberish and drivel.

You can not add a maximum minus error to a maximum plus error.
The maximum error in both cases always is 2 seconds maximum.

And as I proved to you, the whole + 5 seconds matter, is pure hogwash by NIST, as you can count out yourself by simply watching NIST its own video I
posted. You easily see then, that those ghost seconds added by NIST do not exist.

And then we are back to the meat of the matter, even with a max. error of 2 seconds the END point of that first pack of huge seismic signals is still
one second EARLIER than that pack of peaks its end.

Every person with a shimmer of education will also understand that one column snapping can NEVER EVER cause a much bigger seismic signal than all the
other, identical columns 8.3 seconds later snapping.

By the way, there is a significant moment in the collapse that can be tied to the seismogram.

The atomic clocked CIANCA photo.

And then we have the atomic clocked LDEO seismogram.

When you overlay the Cianca time stamp moment, on the time line of the WTC 7 seismogram, you have, what is called a PERFECT MATCH. You only have to
shift it 17 secs to the right (+ OR - 2 secs max error margin for traveling time of certain seismic waves ) , to be able to compare both events.
The events were the writing of the seismograph's needle in Palisades, and the sinking of the east penthouse its roof line.

15h.) Spamming: You will not Post identical content, or snippets of identical content, to multiple threads in the discussion forums. You will also not
create more than one thread for your topic, or create multiple "slightly different" threads for a single topic.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.